John Thesis #2

By John Page

 

However, Grant’s boyhood and early life did not indicate that he had any special skill set for military life.[1] His family was from an intersection of the two main regions of the country, and he did not seem interested in military matters until he was sent to West Point against his will. Even then, he seemed unsure if this was the life he wanted as “…Ulysses was less than grateful [getting into West Point]… he didn’t know much about the military academy… ‘I [Grant] did not believe that I possessed them [skills to get in], and could not bear the idea of failing’”.[2] This was an unlikely attitude of the Union’s most famous general but might be part of the reason why he had trouble as a president. He may have lacked a sense that he was fully capable for the job of leading the nation and had been put into his position by chance.

His background made him an unusual choice to be seen as a hero of the Northern cause. It can be argued that he had just as strong connection to the South as to the North. This is evident from his relationships.  A large portion of his West Point classmates and even his own wife had strong connections to the South or held views that seemed in line with that region.[3] Grant’s own views on the day’s main issues, such as slavery, are still being debated by historians. [4] Still, from his writings we can get a sense that he tried to hold a view that was moderate for the time in which he lived.  He was more concerned with maintaining harmony within the nation than a purely ideological goal. He saw the fears many people in the South had in regard to their future but also felt the extremists on both side were dangerous to the country as a whole[5]. If either side was to gain complete power, then Grant was concerned that the rights of some portion of the population would be ignored. When Grant was asked about his political views of the time, he replied with the following statement

I therefore voted for James Buchanan for President. Four years later the Republican party was successful in electing its candidate to the Presidency. The … civilized world has learned the consequence. Four millions of human beings held as chattels have been liberated; the ballot has been given to them; the free schools of the country have been opened to their children. The nation still lives, and the people are just as free to avoid social intimacy with the blacks as ever they were, or as they are with white people. [6]

 

This quote shows that Grant saw all of the social change as something that was not an important matter, as people could act either the same as they did before or not. Getting rid of slavery was good but not a harbinger of major social upheaval. The fears of both sides were not realized, and the Union was safe. The quote even gives a sense that Grant was unsure about why people even got so worked-up about slavery. Grant might have seen the debates about slavery as people being irrational and not seeing the fear that everyone had about the future and of each other.

Despite this potential reason to not fight for the Union, Grant’s skills as a general let him rise in the ranks until he was the supreme leader of the Union Army.[7] Grant’s desire for peace became evident after the war when he had become an advocate of a peaceful rebuilding of the nation and avoiding harsh punishments on the South.[8] People felt that his motto of “Let us have peace” showed how he understood that the violent mindset of the war must be switched to a mentality of reconciliation if the nation was to fully recover and be stronger then it was before the Civil War. Grant’s appeal as a political leader was multi-layered where his military record and his love of peace worked in harmony.

Grant had been known as a leader for some form of civil rights as a result of his experience with African-American soldiers, and the veterans of the Union Army liked him.[9] Grant should have had the wide support to accomplish his goals as president. He seemed to have had the vision and the support for great change that would be just for all. This didn’t fully happen. The reason is that the time in-between the end of the Civil War and Grant’s election to the presidency was a time of great political infighting. This made it impossible for Grant to fully control the nation, and so the goals of others got more attention than his own policy goals. [10]

Grant is seen as having a lot of promise when he became president.[11] David Sims, as part of a larger discussion of Grant’s presidency, talks about what his potential was a president. “It was clear that Grant’s celebrity and his lack of political experience had the potential to give him great freedom of action; certainly it was perceived as such. In the eyes of many he remained unsullied by the stench of political deal-making. Owing neither his nomination nor his election to political maneuvering, Grant was beholden to none.”[12]  The irony of this, in light of Grant’s later reputation as a political fool, is not lost on Sims. He explains how Grant should have been able to reform such agencies as the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[13]

Grant had a mixture of political innocence and a reputation as a war hero that should have given him the influence to run the country as he wished. He was like a later war hero and political new comer, Dwight D. Eisenhower in that both are seen as failures and as being overwhelmed by the non-military world.  This is unfair, because generals have to deal with infighting and jockeying for position as well as lead armies during their careers. They have to be clever in order to even reach a point in their life were they could even be considered a national leader. Grant should have had more than enough experience and insight for the job of president.

[1] William, Brands. The Man Who Saved the Union. (New York., Doubleday. 2012) 8

[2] Brands. 9

[3]William, Davis. Crucible of Command: Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee- The War They Fought, the Peace They Forged. (Da Capo Press. 2014 )  92

[4] Davis talks about how Grant’s wife owned slaves while Grant’s own views on the matter are confused up until the Civil War. Davis does say that Grant and a vague idea that this situation was wrong while he did care about the people connected with the “institution”. Grant could see the good in people from both sides. Grant could function in both societies and this should have made him a strong choice to reunite the nation.  He was willing to see the good in other people even if he felt what they were doing was wrong. Ibid

[5] Ulysses. S, Grant. The Personal Memories of Ulysses S. Grant . (New York., 1885) 332

[6] Ibid, 332-333

[7], Michael B. Ballard Vicksburg: The Campaign that Opened the Mississippi. (The University of North Carolina Press, 2004) 423

[8] Waugh  112

[9] Ibid,.3

[10] Ballard, 420

[11] Sim. 243

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid